Physics Forums Crackpot Index and Bingo
Discussing science online can often be a frustrating experience if no quality controls are in place, which is often the case. As part useful reference and part entertainment PF has put together an adequate list of common attributes associated with dubious scientific discussion. Next time you’re in a discussion, check this list to see if your participants are debating in good faith or not.
Thanks to the dozen or so PF staff and advisors helped compile this list. Enjoy our Physics Forums Crackpot Index!
Table of Contents
Style and Formatting
5 points: Obvious copy and paste
5 points: Wall of Text
5 points: Over the top special formatting
20 points: No math shown
20 points: Excessive math without consistency or explanations
Telling Quotes
5 points: “you don’t allow open-minded people to post about the subject”
5 points: “I am thinking out of the box”
5 points: “Science is all about asking questions”
5 points: “you are censoring discussion”
10 points: “Einstein was just a clerk”
10 points: “Einstein was bad at math”
15 points: “I’ve been working on this for 20 years”
15 points: “people didn’t believe Galileo initially”
20 points: “Units here ≠ units here”
20 points: “Scientists/others try to ban/suppress my theory”
30 points: “Because I haven’t had formal training I can see things others might have missed”
30 points: “I’m not a physicist, but…”
30 points: “I don’t know the math”
50 points: “I just discovered the laws of physics are wrong”
Refuting the establishment
5 points: You can’t conclude something you don’t have direct evidence for
15 points: Science is wrong because it doesn’t do logic correctly
20 points: Skeptical of the standard model
25 points: Claiming Einstein was a radical in his day
25 points: Claiming that Relativity is only accepted due to Einstein’s reputation
25 points: Claiming that Einstein plagiarized his work
30 points: Claiming Einstein is wrong
30 points: Claiming Newton is wrong
Desperate Measures
5 points: Putting mentors / science advisors on ignore.
5 points: Post offers a complicated analogy rather than a descriptive model
10 points: Ignoring critiques.
10 points: Profane, insulting, threatening PMs to complain about their Notice/Infraction…
50 points: Creating a sockpuppet to agree with you.
Questionable References
5 points: Uses http://vixra.org or similar reference
5 points: Link URL contains multiple hyphens
5 points: Link URL domain is something other than .com .edu .org or .gov
10 points: Posting under the pretense of asking a question
10 points: References to simplified models designed for TV shows etc
15 points: Digging up 100-year-old papers looking for a secret
15 points: Links to article written by a content writing company
20 points: Links to paper published on personal website
20 points: Personal blog link
30 points: Citing or quoting sources in support of their position which in reality refute their position
Day Dreamers
15 points: Science is wrong because of my philosophical beliefs
15 points: Using words without a proper definition
40 points: Mentions science fiction, UFOs or pseudoscience
40 points: Includes the words like “truths”, “God”, “secret”, “breakthrough”, “revolutionary”, “mystery”
50 points: Includes topics from our banned topic list
Bonus! Turn it into a Crackpot Bingo game!
Source: member micromass
Resources:
A Layman’s Guide to: Lies, Damned Lies and Pseudoscience
John Baez’s Original Crackpot Index
I have a BS in Information Sciences from UW-Milwaukee. I’ve helped manage Physics Forums for over 22 years. I enjoy learning and discussing new scientific developments. STEM communication and policy are big interests as well. Currently a Sr. SEO Specialist at Shopify and writer at importsem.com
That was fun to read.
I know it might seem a bit overlong for a casual bookworm, but the key is to imagine it being a hip-hop song.
There's a strongly-defined rythm, you see, with the perpetrator repeating the same arguments in nice, regular intervals. He's the chorus here, providing emotionally punctuated counterpoints to other members' rapping their souls away.
Story-wise, the protagonist is the martial hero reaffirming his resolve over and over again, like Leonidas choosing to defend his doomed position despite insurmountable odds.
The Persians attack in billions upon billions of stanzas, with frontal assaults and sneaky attacks to the rear. Their name is legion and though they have no pity they try to seduce the hero away from his post.
The general structure of the lyrics is interesting too, with a strong beginning setting up the stakes, very level action throughout the 2/3rds of the running time – toned down as if intentionally refusing to advance the plot. Then there's an elated, almost climactic development around page #10, where the protagonist seems to give up under the relentless assault, only to triumphantly return to his duty as the eternal guardian in a surprise twist, somewhere in the vicinity of post #200.
In the closing lines the Persians claim victory, even as the protagonist stands undefeated among the corpses of argumentation.
Of course, it could have been better. The protagonist could have asserted his martyrdom in persecution by the Gilliamesque behemoth of the Establishment. He could have called upon gods of physcis to stand by his side and guide his spear-hand. All those would, likely, increase the immediate consummability of the thread, but at the risk of forcing the story to seek premature conclusion.
All in all, a tour de force and a credit to all involved.
Jokes aside, I think this one could have been saved. The huge volume and very short timespan in which the thread reached the conclusion worked against the purpose of education. It takes time to relfect upon what you're told, especially if the beliefs are held very strongly. The amount of responses in such a short time simply turned the defence mechanisms on, forcing the man to blankly repeat his arguments.
Perhaps if the forum members were less eager to correct the errors of his ways, he'd get there. In time.
This thread gives a good example of the futility of attempting to educate someone who refuses to be educated – 1.5 Times the Speed of Light.
At the time, I had been re-reading relativity theory and felt informed enough to contribute. Many people tried over the course of 13 pages to get the OP to see the error of his ways but nothing would sway him from his initial belief that someone was traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light – even when he was presented with his own statements that contridicted his belief! After the thread was locked, he PM'd me to continue the discussion but I chose not to discuss it further as I didn't believe that anything would change.
It was CBS News not BBC… O.o
Thanks for the info about susskind vs. kaku, I'll read about it later.
Btw, is Miles Mathis a crackpot? I find his radical view of physics intriguing and thought provoking… and I refuted his thoughts about the big bang that was cited in a thread.
Crackpot doesn't hold water, what little water it may hold are usually dried up by empirical evidences and/or mathematical proof.
But what if the radical remarks happened to came from Michio Kaku? BBC quoted him about the "higgs boson caused the big bang"… is that 50 points in the index or what? Sean Carroll and Matt Strassler disagreed and refuted Kaku on their separate blog. It was going to be a lopsided discussion without Kaku to defend himself so even I don't understand the higgs mechanism myself, I defended Kaku especially from the morons and sycophants.Leonard susskind published a paper to refute kaku's claims about worm holes and time travel.
Crackpot doesn't hold water, what little water it may hold are usually dried up by empirical evidences and/or mathematical proof.
But what if the radical remarks happened to came from Michio Kaku? BBC quoted him about the "higgs boson caused the big bang"… is that 50 points in the index or what? Sean Carroll and Matt Strassler disagreed and refuted Kaku on their separate blog. It was going to be a lopsided discussion without Kaku to defend himself so even I don't understand the higgs mechanism myself, I defended Kaku especially from the morons and sycophants.
Alright. I think I win this game:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/home-quantum-energy-generator [Broken]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEBd_igOGs&feature=player_detailpage#t=18
Almost as good as the keshe reactor guy.
And he has collected $16k. Crackpottery pays.Yes, obviously it can pay. :grumpy:
Alright. I think I win this game:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/home-quantum-energy-generator [Broken]And he has collected $16k. Crackpottery pays.
Alright. I think I win this game:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/home-quantum-energy-generator [Broken]
Arrogance: offensive display of superiority[SUP]1 [/SUP]or self-importance; overbearing pride.
In view of this definition, I'm afraid I can't agree with you.Ridicule: Words or actions intended to evoke contemptuous[SUP]2[/SUP] laughter at or feelings toward a person or thing.
[SUP]2[/SUP] Contempt:The feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior[SUP]1[/SUP], base, or worthless; scorn.
[SUP]1[/SUP] Inferior: Antonym of superior.
If that doesn't convince then as I said with respect to another point- we have to agree to differ.
I am tired of this argument now, I will not budge from my sense of proprieties and neither will you. The discussion now has come to a point that in my humble opinion it can not be concluded without someone withdrawing. And hence I do so. There is work to be done and I have delayed them long enough.
My best Regards.
The occupation of ridiculing IMO is an occupation of arrogance.Arrogance: offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride.
In view of this definition, I'm afraid I can't agree with you.
The occupation of ridiculing IMO is an occupation of arrogance. Interesting point. Hadn't considered that.
No, most recent examples as you say did not need 'serious' promoting but if they weren't promoted at all we wouldn't even know about it. My main point was that many cranks propound theories that are in open contradiction to experimentally established facts and try to mould the facts to fit the theory. I interpreted promoting as trying to gain acceptance of the theory. Which anyone with a new theory would do.
However the lack of promoting theories has on few occasions hindered the progress. An example would be Chandrashekhar's theory and the ridicule and suppression it faced because of Eddington, had his theory been promoted then astrophysics would have had a considerable head-start.
Theories like string theory and Zz's example of induced fit vs. lock and key mechanicsm have also you will note needed a bit of promoting in face of a more generally accepted theory.
Regards.
One who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.I am afraid I can't agree with that definition as taken absolutely at its face value it would put all the establishers of present theories in that category.There are very few examples (Darwin and speciation might be one of them) and none that I can think of from after the scientific method was established in the 19th century of establishers of present theories who promoted their own belief "over established theories". Quantum mechanics and relativity, for example, are credible in large part because under the appropriate conditions they reduce to the previously accepted classical theories.
And its not as if Einstein ever had to seriously "promote" relativity over established theories. After a reasonable period of initial skepticism to digest what he was saying, the community embraced SR with enthusiasm appropriate for a solution to one of the great unsolved problems of the past half-century.
One who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.I am afraid I can't agree with that definition as taken absolutely at its face value it would put all the establishers of present theories in that category. A better definition would someone whose theories go against the established theory and the experimental evidence present to support the theory. Though your definition is certainly an indicator of a crank but does not prove it definitely.
I agree with Bandersnatch's point about how it's ok to ridicule arrogance.The occupation of ridiculing IMO is an occupation of arrogance. Ridicule will be often (in my limited experience) would just aggravate the crank further and the crank will start looking at himself/herself as a martyr to the cause making ridicule even more counter-productive.
Yeah — the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger :eek:
:biggrin:Yes, that is probably the case with some cranks but as Drakkith pointed out many of these are often highly educated personae with just as high claims with of course nothing to substantiate them with as far as experimental evidence is concerned. They are more fanatics than reasoners of science convinced at their own theories of the universe to the point that they refute the proof universe provides itself.
I agree with Bandersnatch's point about how it's ok to ridicule arrogance. The more physics I learn, the more embarrassment I feel when rememberling the arrogance of my youth. :blushing:
[…] It seems in some (many?) cases, ignorance and stupidity can lead to arrogance. And that shell is very hard – and I guess in some cases impossible – to break through.Yeah — the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger :eek:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1]
Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]:biggrin:
I'd agree except that many times they have a perfectly reasonable ability to logically analyze and are smart, intelligent people. Some have PHD's or other degrees that they've earned at regular colleges.
In my opinion, a crackpot is someone who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.Yes, in this case, it has got to be something about personal bias getting in the way.
Why and or how this becomes the case, is really beyond me. I was never instructed to believe that for any particular reason I was more likely to be "more right" than anyone else unless I could prove it. When I was a little girl, my father proudly told a story of disproving something his chemistry teacher kept going on about, and being very stern in the "The greatest thing about science is that the ego lays with the evidence, not with the presenter of the evidence"
Learning to separate yourself from your research is a must. Which is very difficult when you're truly invested and quite frankly, biased in the results.
I've always perceived crackpots as people with an inability to logically analyze things. They have no internal checkpoints by which they view the world. For example, when they ponder on a new idea, they don't put it through the same set of rigorous questions that I would (and I suspect, many of the other members here would).I'd agree except that many times they have a perfectly reasonable ability to logically analyze and are smart, intelligent people. Some have PHD's or other degrees that they've earned at regular colleges.
In my opinion, a crackpot is someone who believes that they are correct over the rest of the scientific community AND promotes their own belief over established theories.
I used to agree with you, Enigman. Then I spent time arguing with them, trying to explain gently how their "theories" were inconsistent with experiment, other theories, or (in most cases) within themselves. While a very few of them listened, the vast majority simply declared me a soulless minion of orthodoxy and carried on none the wiser.I have the same experience.
As far as I see the things from my ill-educated vantage point of my comfy armchair, it's neither ignorance nor stupidity that elicits or deserves ridicule, but the arrogance.I think so too. It seems in some (many?) cases, ignorance and stupidity can lead to arrogance. And that shell is very hard – and I guess in some cases impossible – to break through.
Regarding the question of how to deal with it, I see education and humor as tools. I guess it's a matter of context; age, education, willingness to think and learn.
When I was very young, I remember I had an idea that the Moon and the Sun were the same object. In the day, the Sun was shining bright, in the night, it was just shining less bright. This is pretty cute, I think. Now I am older and better educated. If I would hold on to my prior belief, it would not be cute anymore, it would be ridiculous.
I also very much like this quote by Michael Shermer:
You want to have a mind open enough to accept radical new ideas, but not so open that your brains fall out. (from Baloney Detection Kit, (Dr. Michael Shermer)).
I used to agree with you, Enigman. Then I spent time arguing with them, trying to explain gently how their "theories" were inconsistent with experiment, other theories, or (in most cases) within themselves. While a very few of them listened, the vast majority simply declared me a soulless minion of orthodoxy and carried on none the wiser.
I agree that ridicule probably isn't immediately helpful, but what are your options when someone simply rejects reason and experiment while vigorously denying that they are doing either? I eventually went with "giving up", which is why I read and post here.Could it be less of an object of the material at hand, and more of something that stems from a lack of concrete ability to analyze?
I've always perceived crackpots as people with an inability to logically analyze things. They have no internal checkpoints by which they view the world. For example, when they ponder on a new idea, they don't put it through the same set of rigorous questions that I would (and I suspect, many of the other members here would).
You know, the typical questions: How is this possible? How does this fit in with accepted theory? What motivates or instigates this action? Is it mathematically sound? Does it withstand experiment (ie can it be repeated)? Does it withstand peer review?
Whenever I either think of a "new" idea, or come upon an idea I've not yet seen before that isn't "accepted as standard", I work through most of these in my head and do further research. If it doesn't seem plausible after that, it likely isn't.
Whereas with crackpots, there is a certain personal bias that blocks any true rigorous analysis. It's "my idea and therefore right" stands blatantly in the way.
As far as I see the things from my ill-educated vantage point of my comfy armchair, it's neither ignorance nor stupidity that elicits or deserves ridicule, but the arrogance.
Ridiculing the ignorant is counterproductive to educating them, ridiculing the stupid is akin to laughing at the disabled because they can't run as fast as you. But when somebody is so full of himself so as to not only trust his own faculties over the collected effort of the rest of the world, but demand others to do the same, he needs to be slaped in the face.
With a fish, preferably, but a healthy dose of ridiciule would do just the same.
Whether it serves as a wake-up call, or just to prevent the spread of the infection, the world will be thus made a better place.
Mabe this is just me, but I find arrogance disruptive to the society, wherever it pops up. Arrogance breeds confidence, which might fool other people in believing you despite the near-perfect vacuum where the substance of your claims ought to be.
There's more people in the world than ever before, so either you learn to coexist and cooperate with your fellow humans, or dream of being the king of the world where it doesn't affect others.I agree. I think it's both arrogance and lack of purpose/higher goal. If the crackpot's main object was to learn and be productive, the baseless theories and ignorance would soon stop and the said individual will learn.
IMO the essence of crackpottery is stupidity, not ignorance. Of course many of them are ignorant as well, but not all. The ones who got a mainstream science education before they lost the plot are usually more fun to watch (from a safe distance!).
Indeed. I think this is akin to how some people get actual enjoyment from tormenting others, or playing practical jokes on someone whose temperament is not suited to being on the receiving end of such. I.e., it's a form of bullying.As far as I see the things from my ill-educated vantage point of my comfy armchair, it's neither ignorance nor stupidity that elicits or deserves ridicule, but the arrogance.
Ridiculing the ignorant is counterproductive to educating them, ridiculing the stupid is akin to laughing at the disabled because they can't run as fast as you. But when somebody is so full of himself so as to not only trust his own faculties over the collected effort of the rest of the world, but demand others to do the same, he needs to be slaped in the face.
With a fish, preferably, but a healthy dose of ridiciule would do just the same.
Whether it serves as a wake-up call, or just to prevent the spread of the infection, the world will be thus made a better place.
Mabe this is just me, but I find arrogance disruptive to the society, wherever it pops up. Arrogance breeds confidence, which might fool other people in believing you despite the near-perfect vacuum where the substance of your claims ought to be.
There's more people in the world than ever before, so either you learn to coexist and cooperate with your fellow humans, or dream of being the king of the world where it doesn't affect others.
I've seen some crackpot in different sites. There is a "physics professor" telling that the standard model is wrong because he says so. And an "experimental physicist" who hates CERN squandering money whereas the methods of her "team" is better. And some sockpuppets on the same IP address.
I don't know what to do with them, but for the meantime I don't interact with them reasoning that it would be equivalent to touching crap with my bare hand, on the other hand interaction with them might aggravate their condition.
Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it.I used to agree with you, Enigman. Then I spent time arguing with them, trying to explain gently how their "theories" were inconsistent with experiment, other theories, or (in most cases) within themselves. While a very few of them listened, the vast majority simply declared me a soulless minion of orthodoxy and carried on none the wiser.
I agree that ridicule probably isn't immediately helpful, but what are your options when someone simply rejects reason and experiment while vigorously denying that they are doing either? I eventually went with "giving up", which is why I read and post here.
PF is quite enough for me now, when I learn enough here to teach, well perhaps…I think young Greg did forget one.
When the apparently, "smart one" talks, in the language of the Jabberwocky, beware……..
:devil:
We've been there, done that, and we learned that it's hopeless. We had "Theory Development" and "Independent Research" forums. What a waste of time and energy. There are forums that allow crackpots to post, you can certainly try to help them on those forums.PF is quite enough for me now, when I learn enough here to teach, well perhaps…
:thumbs:
no! NO ONE EXPECTS…
umm…nevermind :biggrin::biggrin:[SUP]2[/SUP]
I think there's a difference between being called a charlatan by, say, the Physics Forum Staff, and, hmm…. the westboro baptist church?
I'm sure if Galileo had expected :rolleyes: the spanish[SUP]*[/SUP]no! NO ONE EXPECTS…
* Whatever….. Nerd!umm…nevermind :biggrin:
What is funny about ignorance I have never been able to comprehend.Indeed. I think this is akin to how some people get actual enjoyment from tormenting others, or playing practical jokes on someone whose temperament is not suited to being on the receiving end of such. I.e., it's a form of bullying.
…
Nope, he wasn't but at that time he did his work he was called a charlatan.
…I think there's a difference between being called a charlatan by, say, the Physics Forum Staff, and, hmm…. the westboro baptist church?
I'm sure if Galileo had expected :rolleyes: the spanish[SUP]*[/SUP] inquisition, he may have only shared his scientific revelations with peers.
hmmm…. Did Galileo have any peers?
————————–
* Whatever….. Nerd!
What is funny about ignorance I have never been able to comprehend.IMO the essence of crackpottery is stupidity, not ignorance. Of course many of them are ignorant as well, but not all. The ones who got a mainstream science education before they lost the plot are usually more fun to watch (from a safe distance!).
Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it.We've been there, done that, and we learned that it's hopeless. We had "Theory Development" and "Independent Research" forums. What a waste of time and energy. There are forums that allow crackpots to post, you can certainly try to help them on those forums.
I'm not talking about figuring out if someone is a crackpot, I'm talking about someone who has already shown themselves to be a crackpot. We get plenty of people who post nonsense but end up just being ignorant. Most of these people prove willing to learn and are not crackpots.
Well that's just wrong. A crackpot has removed themselves from the possibility of being educated well before they are ever ridiculed. The fact that they are ridiculed is a direct result of their inability to accept that they could be wrong and may not know what they are talking about.Inasmuch ridicule starts as education ends we lose the chance to find what would have occurred in case that education had been pursued further. It may well have a negative result but the hope for a positive one is enough for me to pursue it. And in case of a persistent negative result the mentors always have the right to close threads or ban members as they see fit. The non-constructive and unfruitful act of ridicule does not help either the 'crank' nor the 'educator' (shall we say), except perhaps giving a momentary pleasure of superiority in the later. As I said before I shall maintain my stand on this position and as you will on yours, essentially rendering this debate a waste of time, while we could spend it other constructive activities.
Regards.
And its usually by ridicule that it is thrown as such.Well that's just wrong. A crackpot has removed themselves from the possibility of being educated well before they are ever ridiculed. The fact that they are ridiculed is a direct result of their inability to accept that they could be wrong and may not know what they are talking about.
…….Once you reach the point of ridicule, the possibility of education has usually been thrown out the window, so I see no relationship between the two.And its usually by ridicule that it is thrown as such. What is funny about ignorance I have never been able to comprehend. I will continue to defer on this point and I see no argument that will bring you around, so let us just agree to differ on the merits of ridiculing people and their ignorance.
It depends. Some people are quicker to ridicule than others… especially on the internet where everyone has balls of steel.
I agree that we shouldn't ridicule cranks. When I see someone dedicating years of their life trying to prove that relativity is wrong, for example, I think it's a sad waste, and mockery is not the answer.There is no answer. If someone generally thinks they are right and all of science is wrong then I WILL laugh at them. Why? Because it's preferable than feeling sorry for them for no good reason. Honestly, why would I feel sorry for someone who deliberately chooses to go that rout? No, if they have dug themselves into their hole, and retain full capability of getting out of it at any time yet choose not to do so, then I have no pity for them. Just like I have no pity for a common criminal who knows what they do is wrong yet doesn't care.
I am well aware of that Milady, but my concern lies in their ridicule which to me defiles the beauty of the process of education. That is the sole thing I am against.Once you reach the point of ridicule, the possibility of education has usually been thrown out the window, so I see no relationship between the two.
No true Scottsman!
Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.I am well aware of that Milady, but my concern lies in their ridicule which to me defiles the beauty of the process of education. That is the sole thing I am against.
And Nugatory- Challenger is good…though a bit funny
Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=565178It ended with 13 posts? Doyle's signalling you from the grave, mischief's afoot…
Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).Well, I was talking about Doyle's argument, which is easily and often misappropriated as justification for crankery.
I agree that we shouldn't ridicule cranks. When I see someone dedicating years of their life trying to prove that relativity is wrong, for example, I think it's a sad waste, and mockery is not the answer.
It has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.Me too. I started a thread about this a while back:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=565178
Renowned writer and skeptic Martin Gardner, in the first chapter of his book "Fads and Fallacies", had given a classic description of the crank/crackpot:
[Some cranks] are brilliant and well-educated, often with an excellent understanding of the branch of science in which they are speculating. Their books can be highly deceptive imitations of the genuine article — well-written and impressively learned….
[C]ranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues. Not isolation in the geographical sense, but in the sense of having no fruitful contacts with fellow researchers…. The modern pseudo-scientist… stands entirely outside the closely integrated channels through which new ideas are introduced and evaluated. He works in isolation. He does not send his findings to the recognized journals, or if he does, they are rejected for reasons which in the vast majority of cases are excellent. In most cases the crank is not well enough informed to write a paper with even a surface resemblance to a significant study. As a consequence, he finds himself excluded from the journals and societies, and almost universally ignored by competent workers in the field….. The eccentric is forced, therefore, to tread a lonely way. He speaks before organizations he himself has founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit, and — until recently — publishes books only when he or his followers can raise sufficient funds to have them printed privately.
Gardner further prepared a list of "five ways in which the sincere pseudo-scientist's paranoid tendencies tend to be exhibited" (as quoted by physicist-turned-statistician Cosma Shalizi in his review of Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science"):
(1) He/she considers himself/herself a genius.
(2) He/she regards his/her colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. Everyone is out of step except himself/herself.
(3) He/she believes himself/herself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against.
(4) He/she has strong compulsions to focus his/her attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name of physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein in the name of Newton.
(5) He/she often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms or phrases he/she has coined.
Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).Enigman, true crackpots CANNOT be educated, trust me. And if they have non-mainstream ideas, well, then it's not suitable for PF because our niche is teaching and discussing known, accepted mainstream science.
"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.DoyleIt has never ceased to fascinate me that the man who gave us Sherlock Holmes (Professor Challenger, maybe not so much) was also a credulous near-mystic.
I could buy the claim that (for some definition of "grew") chemistry grew from alchemy and astronomy from astrology. I don't buy the same claim for Mesmerism and experimental psychology, although I could be persuaded that Mesmer was indeed seeking after truth and just happened not to find it.
It's a huge stretch, possibly huge enough to justify inclusion in Crackpot Index, to conclude from this history that "The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow". Semmelweis (already mentioned by another other poster in this thread) is a rare exception indeed, an exception that is worth studying in its own right because it is so extraordinary.
Historical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.Quite so. And your point is, Nugatory? We were talking about how we should or shouldn't make fun of 'cranks' because a) their theories are plain wrong (in which case they should be educated) or b) their theories are unorthodox (which then should be listened to with a grain of salt).
As with regards to Jim's comment: it would seem to apply only to category a) but a prime example of it being applied wrongly would be in case of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Chandra's discovery might well have transformed and accelerated developments in both physics and astrophysics in the 1930s. Instead, Eddington's heavy-handed intervention lent weighty support to the conservative community astrophysicists, who steadfastly refused even to consider the idea that stars might collapse to nothing. As a result, Chandra's work was almost forgotten.I've never found education through ridicule to be a very attractive prospective, and have always thought that it to be derogatory to the subject itself; but this of course just my opinion.
And Galileo certainly was never an astrologer!Eh? It's a matter of historical record that he was a practicing astrologer. It was part of his duties as a math professor to cast the horoscopes of nobles and the well-to-do.
Science at the time was completely tangled up with Aristotelian beliefs, and those beliefs had gone through the Middle East and come back to Europe mixed up with, I believe it was Zoroastrian, ideas about astrology. It was de rigeur at the time to learn astrology alongside Euclid.
Here's a link to a review of a collection of scholarly papers that explore Galileo's involvement with astrology:
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&ty…als/renaissance_quarterly/v059/59.1boner.html
It's peer-reviewed, yes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MUSE
"The charlatan is always the pioneer. From the astrologer came the astronomer, from the alchemist the chemist, from the mesmerist the experimental psychologist. The quack of yesterday is the professor of tomorrow."
-A.C.DoyleHistorical context is important. A few thousand years ago, studying the motion of astronomical objects in an attempt to predict events on earth (growing seasons and Nile floods, for example) was a valuable endeavor that generated new knowledge. Do that today, without bothering to understand what we've learned over the subsequent millennia, and you will rightly be branded an astrologer and a crank.
I don't see it as cruel. Especially if it wakes them up.
As an old guy, if I can't laugh at my folly I haven't much to laugh about.
Others should enjoy it too.
“Hey boss, did you ever seen a more splendiferous crash? "alexis zorbahttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057831/
What we refer to as "crackpots" are people that have little or no basis in actual science and make preposterous proposals, or misunderstand the science so badly that it's as bad as having no basis. The problem is that crackpots do not realize that they don't know what they're talking about.True. Seems like they start down the mainstream science path but they take a wrong turn, and become convinced that 'This can't possibly be right. There's no way nature can be this complex, I bet I can simplify everything!'
And there seems to be a prevailing belief that science happens in bursts of genius. Sure things can happen that way, but most of the time progress is a slow slog. Crackpots really don't understand that.